4 ms·

Right but presumably the OP had an existing bank account. You can't wire money into thin air. Assuming OP is a regular person with a regular bank account, then

Right but presumably the OP had an existing bank account. You can't wire money into thin air. Assuming OP is a regular person with a regular bank account, then further KYC isn't necessary. KYC for every international wire transfer is in fact not true at all, only for the edge case where a person wants to receive money and he has no existing account to transfer it in.

jacquesm 8mo ago
You can't just transfer money to a person that has no account. That's not an 'edge case' that just isn't how it works unless you want to use WU or something similar and even they have strict KYC requirements for larger sums. If you want to move large amounts of money outside of the regular financial networks and oversight it is possible but (1) it will cost you (2) you will be breaking the law and (3) you may cause others to be breaking the law. Bitcoin would be one way to do it but even that is not nearly as anonymous as most of its users believe. Banking is a regulated industry for a reason. There was a period (roughly until 2001, guess why) when banks were willing and able to bend the rules depending on who the customer was and how much money was involved. Those banks that continued to do this post 2001 have - if they're located in the West at least - had their ears bent in ways that they did not like one bit and even the Swiss now play ball. Cash is becoming harder to use and harder to get. Money will most likely go digital in the West soon, the various governments don't like the unauditable and untaxable money streams that cash provides.
- walletdrainer 8mo ago
  > You can't just transfer money to a person that has no account. That's not an 'edge case' that just isn't how it works unless you want to use WU or something similar Preeetty sure this is something explicitly supported via standard SWIFT messaging.
  - jacquesm 8mo ago
    That the protocol (which predates a lot of legislation) supports it does not mean that your bank supports it. Give it a try though, I'd love to hear about it.
    - walletdrainer 8mo ago
      Surely that just depends on how important of a customer you are. I have no need for this, but have witnessed some pretty exotic swift messaging in my life and I wouldn’t be surprised if e.g. some banks in Africa have to regularly deal with this exact kind of situation.
      - jacquesm 8mo ago
        I think that's enough goalpost moving for one discussion, we've gone from 'this is easy' to 'VIPs can have the rules bent, sometimes'. I've worked for a bank and I have seen some 'exotic Swift messaging' as well but I also know how rare it is. Joe average does not have access to this kind of feature through their telebanking interface, or any other means.
        walletdrainer 8mo ago
        There’s been precisely zero goalpost-moving. I’m not trying to win a debate here. I’m only pointing out an interesting, exotic detail about interbank messaging. Certainly did not intend to upset you, I apologise if I didn’t communicate clearly enough.

jacquesm 8mo ago

You can't just transfer money to a person that has no account. That's not an 'edge case' that just isn't how it works unless you want to use WU or something similar and even they have strict KYC requirements for larger sums. If you want to move large amounts of money outside of the regular financial networks and oversight it is possible but (1) it will cost you (2) you will be breaking the law and (3) you may cause others to be breaking the law. Bitcoin would be one way to do it but even that is not nearly as anonymous as most of its users believe. Banking is a regulated industry for a reason. There was a period (roughly until 2001, guess why) when banks were willing and able to bend the rules depending on who the customer was and how much money was involved. Those banks that continued to do this post 2001 have - if they're located in the West at least - had their ears bent in ways that they did not like one bit and even the Swiss now play ball. Cash is becoming harder to use and harder to get. Money will most likely go digital in the West soon, the various governments don't like the unauditable and untaxable money streams that cash provides.

walletdrainer 8mo ago
> You can't just transfer money to a person that has no account. That's not an 'edge case' that just isn't how it works unless you want to use WU or something similar Preeetty sure this is something explicitly supported via standard SWIFT messaging.
- jacquesm 8mo ago
  That the protocol (which predates a lot of legislation) supports it does not mean that your bank supports it. Give it a try though, I'd love to hear about it.
  - walletdrainer 8mo ago
    Surely that just depends on how important of a customer you are. I have no need for this, but have witnessed some pretty exotic swift messaging in my life and I wouldn’t be surprised if e.g. some banks in Africa have to regularly deal with this exact kind of situation.
    - jacquesm 8mo ago
      I think that's enough goalpost moving for one discussion, we've gone from 'this is easy' to 'VIPs can have the rules bent, sometimes'. I've worked for a bank and I have seen some 'exotic Swift messaging' as well but I also know how rare it is. Joe average does not have access to this kind of feature through their telebanking interface, or any other means.
      - walletdrainer 8mo ago
        There’s been precisely zero goalpost-moving. I’m not trying to win a debate here. I’m only pointing out an interesting, exotic detail about interbank messaging. Certainly did not intend to upset you, I apologise if I didn’t communicate clearly enough.